Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Final Fantasy XI

Final Fantasy XI

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 13:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy XI is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), developed and published by Square as part of the Final Fantasy series. Designed and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka, it was released in Japan on May 16, 2002 for Sony's PlayStation 2, and for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers in November of that year. The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG. The story is set in the fantasy world of Vana'diel, where player-created avatars can both compete and cooperate in a variety of objectives to develop an assortment of jobs, skills, and earn in-game item rewards. Players can also undertake an array of quests and progress through the in-game hierarchy and thus through the major plot of the game. Since its debut in 2002, five expansion packs have also been released along with six add-on scenarios. In 2006, between 200,000 and 300,000 active players logged in per day, and the game was the dominant MMORPG in Japan. Final Fantasy XI has a user base of around 500,000 subscribers, and the total number of active characters exceeds 2 million. It is the most profitable title in the Final Fantasy series. (Full article...)

Final Fantasy XI game producer Hiromichi Tanaka

Final Fantasy XI is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), developed and published by Square as part of the Final Fantasy series. Designed and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka (pictured), it was released in Japan on May 16, 2002 for Sony's PlayStation 2, and for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers in November of that year. The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG. The story is set in the fantasy world of Vana'diel, where player-created avatars can both compete and cooperate in a variety of objectives to develop an assortment of jobs, skills, and earn in-game item rewards. Players can also undertake an array of quests and progress through the in-game hierarchy and thus through the major plot of the game. Since its debut in 2002, five expansion packs have also been released along with six add-on scenarios. In 2006, between 200,000 and 300,000 active players logged in per day, and the game was the dominant MMORPG in Japan. Final Fantasy XI has a user base of around 500,000 subscribers, and the total number of active characters exceeds 2 million. It is the most profitable title in the Final Fantasy series. (Full article...)

Final Fantasy XI is the most profitable Final Fantasy game ever made, and still is being updated despite being 11 years old. I nominated it in 2008 and it has successfully kept its Featured Status for five years, the day would be the 11th anniversary of its first release, and the topic is "widely noted". Normally that would be 5 points, but God of War (April 19) will make the date slightly under a month in between video game articles. Maybe the coordinators will be generous and call it 4? In any case, I nominate and support. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject needs italics. MMORPG needs to be expanded before you use the acronym. Was FFXI the first cross-platform MMORPG or was it merely the Xbox 360's first cross-platform MMORPG? I was under the impression that it was the former, in which case the wording does not make that clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article indicates that it is both the first cross platform MMORPG and the first Xbox MMORPG. I fixed the other issues.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Currently, it could be read as being the XBOX's first MMORPG, and (the XBOX's) first cross platfrom MMORPG. I'd suggest rewording to "The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG." to remove the possible ambiguity. Also, on a minor point, isn't it conventionally referred to as "Microsoft Windows" rather than "Microsoft's Windows"? MChesterMC (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Issues fixed Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support, given MChester's rewording. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support, which I meant to put in my original comment, but forgot entirely... MChesterMC (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but cmon, nuthin beats Final Fantasy (video game), someone or someones should really work on gettin that one up to Featured Article quality status. :) — Cirt (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in good time :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of using a picture of a face, I think deriving a free use word-mark from File:Final Fantasy XI logo.png would be more effective and fitting. File:ChocoboridersFFXI.jpg is essentially a decorative non-free image, the article would be much better served with a combat gameplay image. - hahnch e n 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be cool, can anyone make it? I am not talented in that area. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A word-mark would not be that interesting to look at. The face is more attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The face is not indicative of the subject. Logos are designed to be eye catching and are easily recognisable. - hahnchen 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Logos are. This logo is non-free and cannot be used. Word-marks are not attractive, at all. They are font in an image format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Word-marks are not attractive, at all"? Because, what, typography is not attractive at all? What complete bullshit. File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg would be a better lead image, distinctive, recognisable, high contrast. - hahnchen 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So having opinions which are not inline with yours is "ridiculous"? Well, I am sorry to have offended your delicate senses. The fact remains that File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg and similar files are plain black text, block letters on a clear or white background, which offer the general reader little more than typing Final Fantasy XI would. Not to mention the word mark on its own is not recognizable as part of the game; the whole logo is, and that's not free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is ridiculous, hence the continuing existence of word marks. How is a man's face remotely "recognizable as part of the game"? Even those who have played the game, or are familiar with the franchise would not recognise that picture. They would recognise File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg - it turns out that typing plain black text, block letters on a clear or white background - does offer something. - hahnch e n 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It appears your definition of ridiculous and the dictionary's is quite different. There are times when wordmarks might be useful (if Coca-Cola were ever to reach FA status, for example), but having a wordmark instead of a picture of someone related to the subject and worth mentioning in the blurb (such as a director, designer, etc.) would be, in my opinion, ridiculous. Try pushing a wordmark cropped from a poster for Ruma Maida, or Jaws; you'll find piles of opposes. If you feel strongly against having the photograph of the developer, this can be run without an image at all.
        
        As for your patently POINTY that a man's face is not "recognizable as part of the game", which appears to have been a dig at my opinion on the other proposal below, you are comparing apples and oranges. The image below was created to resemble an early FF logo (but is not actually it, and thus has no EV), while a developer is certainly related to the game in question and worth an image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You'd get piles of opposes if you ran a Google TFA with pictures of Larry/Eric/Sergei. And if you're going to pick on Films, try Star Wars. As for the WP:POINTY part, that was the part I removed. - hahnch e n 14:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Google has a fairly widely recognised wordmark (which doubles as its logo), like Coca Cola; Star Wars too, and it's wordmark is essentially the series' logo as a whole. FFXI? Not so much, and the wordmark suggested would be misrepresentation of the actual logo. Hence the comparison to Jaws, for which the wordmark itself is not widely recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For an image, how about something simple and iconic like for example, File:Sword and crystal.png? — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an actual image used by the games, and as such there is no EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with photograph or no image, oppose if there's a wordmark. Call it "toy throwing" if you want, but it is patently clear to me that we're not going to draw readers by pushing plain text as an image when other possibilities are available. There's a reason why DYK, OTD, and ITN (almost) never use wordmarks: they aren't attractive. Wordmarks at FP? Ha! I'll eat my blangkon when that happens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps we could just have no image, and let the text speak for itself. Having an image is great, but as we all know, it's very hard to find free use images of video games. So as nominator I would support no image to keep things simple and peaceful :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind having no image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Supporting "no image", yet opposing a wordmark is incredibly WP:POINTY. Having nothing is more eye catching that the recognisable series logo? I'm not pandering to this. No image is the worst option. - hahnchen 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - And here you go again with your idea that the wordmark = the logo. It doesn't, which is why the non-free logo is in the infobox and not the wordmark. The logo is recognisable. The wordmark isn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not true at all. It's the word-mark which is significantly more recognisable, due to its consistent use throughout the Final Fantasy series. It is the sole series logo. - hahnch e n 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's an inconsistency in the date format that needs to be sorted, with four different date formats in the references: 2007-08-01, 05/10/12, January 1, 2006 and 28 January 2013 all showing up. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 picked up on the dates. FNs 36, 37 and 78 also need to be formatted properly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok those are taken care of too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two above do you really think is more eyecatching? - hahnchen 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, three. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wordmark and no image, in that order; I do hope that we move away from this tendency to use faces which have seemingly little connection to the topic at hand, just to ensure that the blurb has an image. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support image - I like the idea of showing the folks that make these games - the creative people. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts#Selecting the image says "A main page image should convey the topic of the FA with as much specificity as possible, even if you took all the rest of the text away." I agree with the comments about the wordmark not being appropriate and Raul's principle also points away from having a face of the designer to represent the FA topic. Therefore I will select the image-free version. Given all the discussions in various places (such as various TFAR nominations and WP:ERRORS about images in TFA blurbs) I think we could do with having a wider discussion on the topic at some point. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]